If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

That's all you got? Why didn't you just say L. Ron Hubbard or Stephen King?

I notice that you have attacked the messenger and ignored the substance of a well reasoned argument - my chief reason for picking Mr. Crichton's essay. It's okay. You're cover's been blown. You can admit that you are a sycophantic leftie who worships at Al Gores altar of global warming . . . .

Even more important, the earth is not "the warmest it has ever been." In fact, the earth was much warmer during the Medieval Warm Period when human agriculture flourished!

As this graph shows, our climate is in fact continually changing, and the cause is not and could not be CO2. CO2 accounts for less than 3% of all greenhouse gases, and only 6% of atmospheric CO2 is produced by human activity.

That means that less than 2/1,000 of all CO2 is produced by human activity. So even if we wiped out every car, power plant, jet liner, and human being from the face of the earth, there would be no noticeable effect on global CO2 levels.

The most important greenhouse gas by far is water vapor, which evaporates from oceans, lakes and rivers. Water vapor accounts for up to 90% of the earth's greenhouse effect. Atmospheric water vapor levels – like natural CO2 emissions from volcanoes and animals – rises and falls with changes in solar activity.

To put it another way, the amout of CO2 in our atmosphere is the result of changes in solar activity, not the cause of it.

Climate change is natural, continuous, and caused by changes in solar emissions. Over hundreds of thousands of years, the earth's average surface temperature has varied within a narrow 4-degree temperature range. That variation causes both "warm periods," like we are now living in, and "cold periods" accompanied by ice ages, which periodically destroy most life on earth.

More CO2 actually has a beneficent effect on the environment. As the March 2007 issue of Civil Defense Perspectives explains, "Largely because of increased CO2, the U.S. had nearly 200 billion cubic feet more standing timber in 1990 than in 1950."

While the earth's current, natural warming will have some negative effects on some groups (such as island dwellers), it will also have lots of positive effects on many more groups, including the expansion of the growing season. Besides, there is nothing we can do to control the solar cycle which causes global warming. Remember: Our sun gives off more radiation in one second than all human activity produces in 1,000 years!

Skeptics include some of the world's foremost scientists: 85 climate experts who signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration . . . 4,000 scientists from around the world (including 70 Nobel laureates) who signed the Heidelberg Appeal . . . and the 17,000 American scientists who signed the Oregon Petition denying that human activity was the cause of global warming.

“Progress is Providence without God. That is, it is a theory that everything has always perpetually gone right by accident. It is a sort of atheistic optimism, based on an everlasting coincidence far more miraculous than a miracle.”
G. K. Chesterton

Where do I start... I thought CU was a place conservative thinkers came to discuss how to become relevant and be taken seriously again... it's not about liberal or Al Gore, it's about fact vs. fiction...

You can not back up any of your statements with facts from any legitimate scientific publication. The current consensus is the result of years of rigorous peer-review among academics and researchers.

Yeah, I noticed the rigorous citations and references in your original post.

Again, science is not about "consensus". On the contrary, widely held views have repeatedly proven to be false through testing and observation. This isn't to say that science is immune from popular thought - far from it. Popular thought often has led scientific inquiry; sometimes for the good and sometimes for the bad.

Why don't you start a new thread in GD and posit your position (with appropriate citations and references, if you want to do it that way). Pick one aspect of your overall viewpoint to discuss.

Yeah, I noticed the rigorous citations and references in your original post.

Again, science is not about "consensus". On the contrary, widely held views have repeatedly proven to be false through testing and observation. This isn't to say that science is immune from popular thought - far from it. Popular thought often has led scientific inquiry; sometimes for the good and sometimes for the bad.

Why don't you start a new thread in GD and posit your position (with appropriate citations and references, if you want to do it that way). Pick one aspect of your overall viewpoint to discuss.

The disciples of the Church of Global Warming allow me a luxury I rarely indulge in... I get to point and laugh.

“Progress is Providence without God. That is, it is a theory that everything has always perpetually gone right by accident. It is a sort of atheistic optimism, based on an everlasting coincidence far more miraculous than a miracle.”
G. K. Chesterton

Most of its signers have not dealt with climate issues at all and none of them is an acknowledged leading expert. Twenty-five of the signers were TV weathermen - a profession that requires no in-depth knowledge of climate research. Other signers included a dentist, a medical laboratory researcher, a civil engineer, and an amateur meteorologist. Some were not even found to reside at the addresses they had given.

A journalist with the Danish Broadcasting Company attempted to contact the declaration's 33 European signers and found that four of them could not be located, 12 denied ever having signed, and some had not even heard of the Leipzig Declaration. Those who did admit signing included a medical doctor, a nuclear scientist, and an expert on flying insects.

After discounting the signers whose credentials were inflated, irrelevant, false, or unverifiable, it turned out that only 20 of the names on the list had any scientific connection with the study of climate change, and some of those names were known to have obtained grants from the oil and fuel industry, including the German coal industry and the government of Kuwait (a major oil exporter)

some of those names were known to have obtained grants from the oil and fuel industry

which of course makes them discountable unlike those that take money from those that profit from the "green economy" whose findings MUST MUST MUST be taken as infallible.

It amazes me that Gorites demand evidence and/or arguments against their theology and when you give them - they attack the funding or the researcher or anything they can to discount the messenger so they can ignore the message.

It amazes me that Gorites demand evidence and/or arguments against their theology and when you give them - they attack the funding or the researcher or anything they can to discount the messenger so they can ignore the message.

It's an aspect of critical thinking called considering the source. I don't ignore the message, but when an expert takes the stand, it's fair to review his credentials and consider his motivation for giving testimony. If I dismissed Michael Crichton and Liepzig abruptly, it's because they represent (to me) the tired and weak arguments that only serve to make the overall conservative ideas in which I believe less credible to the general public.

I see conservative leaning friends cling to talking points about climate issues without regard for the validity of the source. It works in a discussion with laymen who don't understand the process of scientific research, but you hand Crichton to someone in aerospace, (many in my area), Raytheon, Boeing, and they do a spit take--they spot unscientific analysis of science (spin) a mile away. Embracing and supporting something without logic and thought for its credibility has got to stop if we're going to regain any ground.

Putting government in charge of policing and regulating energy companies is (in my mind) the worst possible scenario. But they (energy, coal, oil) had plenty of time and (god knows) the capital to reign themselves in. Same with the banks BTW, you think I want Barney Frank in charge of anything??!!! Of course not. But when an industry doesn't police themselves, it's only a matter of time before Gov steps in and, like a 3rd rate doctor in a backwater town, they misdiagnose the problem, then empty your wallet to (not)fix it.

Rupert Murdock and Newscorp seem to be moving in a smart direction (see link)

lol And when we do it and point out the obvious bias of your chosen sources you say it's wrong. You can't have it both ways. :p That's a common LEFTIST argument technique. Would you like to come out of the political closet?

That's all you got? Why didn't you just say L. Ron Hubbard or Stephen King?

or Al Gore.

I feel that once a black fella has referred to white foks as "honky paleface devil white-trash cracker redneck Caspers," he's abdicated the right to get upset about the "N" word. But that's just me. -- Jim Goad